Pearl - October 12, 2026


“Lindsay Clancy's Lawyer Finds a NEW Way to Fight the Murder Charges” @JustPearlyThings

“Family Courts Are Making MONEY by Keeping Fathers Trapped in the System” @JustPearlyThings “Woman Gets FURIOUS Because Her Date Made Her Pay for Her Own Food” @JustPearlyThings

Episode Stats


Length

1 minute

Words per minute

208.08

Word count

400

Sentence count

13

Harmful content

Misogyny

4

sentences flagged


Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
00:00:00.000 He had initially argued that this should really be a two-stage trial. 0.94
00:00:04.580 The first stage should be, well, did she kill the kids? 0.88
00:00:08.420 Just like a straight-up murder trial. 0.98
00:00:10.620 Call it the guilt phase of the trial.
00:00:13.360 Prove, the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
00:00:15.260 that she's the one that took the kids down to the basement 0.99
00:00:16.960 and strangled them down there.
00:00:18.980 And there she could be found not guilty, right?
00:00:20.660 The state, in theory, could fail to prove their case,
00:00:23.280 and she could be acquitted.
00:00:24.500 But even if she was found guilty,
00:00:26.740 then you have a second stage where you'd say,
00:00:28.440 all right, we've concluded she killed the kids, but was she insane at the time? And have a
00:00:33.940 completely independent phase. What they did was they forced them, because this was proper
00:00:39.260 Massachusetts law, but Massachusetts law says you can't bifurcate it like that. You have to do it
00:00:44.080 all together. And that puts the defense in a very awkward position. It's a lot like a self-defense
00:00:48.700 case in the sense that when you claim self-defense as a justification for shooting a robber or
00:00:54.060 something you're not saying it wasn't me i didn't do it i have an alibi i was someplace else you're
00:00:59.180 saying i did it i shot that guy right but i did it in justified self-defense okay so you're
00:01:05.820 effectively conceding you're not confessing to a crime but you're conceding to the underlying
00:01:10.700 conduct so is that for the next trial that's why he was saying is that because he's trying to get
00:01:15.820 the next trial split basically uh well he's making the argument now because he's he's trying to get
00:01:21.660 a certain outcome now he doesn't want to go to trial oh he doesn't want to do it again so what
00:01:25.980 he's saying is listen the when you made me combine these two phases into one essentially i was
00:01:31.980 obliged to concede that she was the one who killed the kids because otherwise the insanity defense
00:01:37.820 doesn't make any sense right and i'm i'm making both arguments in front of the same juror but
00:01:42.140 reality if i could have bifurcated it we would have fought on the elements of the murder first
00:01:46.620 and only done insanity later if we had to okay but you forced me to concede that she had done it
00:01:53.340 we don't really think she did it